As news surfaced that the Bush administration is considering appointing Dr. David Hager, a Lexington OB-GYN, to a high-profile FDA committee on reproductive drugs, several major news sources sprang into "search and destroy" mode in efforts to discredit him as too "controversial."

Time led the charge in a story riddled with fact errors, saying, among other things, that Hager was a volunteer at UK Medical School, (he is actually a salaried professor, and directs UK’s OB-GYN residency program at Lexington’s Central Baptist Hospital) and that he’s "scantily credentialed." (Hager has written several books—including medical school texts—as well as over 40 journal articles. He has also served as assistant surgeon at the Centers for Disease Control, and has served on enough medical boards and received enough honors to make your head spin.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in her scathing review of Hager, asked whether we were "so worried about medieval villains abroad that we no longer worry about medievalism at home."

Newsweek’s Anna Quindlen added her shrill voice to the chorus by saying Hager "doesn’t approve of prescribing contraceptives to adult women." (Apparently Quindlen believes one good lie deserves another. The Time article reported that Hager refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Both statements are untrue.) Quindlen added later in her "Last Word" commentary that "it would be a pitiful nation that would let those fringe zealots run things for the rest of us."

It makes one wonder if Hager studied obstetrics at the Butcher Holler one-room schoolhouse, or got his medical license from Voodoo priests in Haiti. But in reality, his transgression is far worse—he’s an outspoken Christian and a pro-life advocate. Such "sins" are often enough to black ball anyone from a powerful Washington position and call into question a resume to rival Einstein’s.

Dowd and others are engaging in what The Family Research Council calls "religious profiling" by writing slanted articles that insinuate that adherence to the Christian faith is an abject disqualifier for scientific thought. But somewhere in the warping of the words, Dowd referenced Hager’s public criticism of RU-486—and that’s where the rubber finally met the road. Hager’s appointment to the FDA Committee on Reproductive Drugs in Women might well bring attention to the health risks of one of the pro-choice lobby’s "scantily credentialed" sacred cows—the abortion pill.

Hager and several groups have filed a Citizen’s Petition with the FDA asking that RU-486, also called Mifeprex, be removed from the market until further study can confirm its safety. Hager maintains that although he is pro-life, he and others filed the petition because of a large body of evidence concerning health risks to women and children. (See related article, pg. 3)

Consequences of Mifeprex can be dire, and yes, women in this country have died from what can go terribly wrong. Even news articles sympathetic to abortion-on-demand quote women who say of the drug, "I woke up in a pool of blood." Despite the Clinton administration’s rush to get it here, and its uncharacteristically easy approval by the FDA, it hasn’t been the boon to the abortion industry that some predicted it would be. One reason is that it can take up to two weeks of cramping and bleeding before the process is complete, and the woman has to dispose of the "product of conception" herself—something that may be a challenge for those weak of stomach and vulnerable of conscience.

Pro-choice and pro-life doctors alike say surgical abortion is more effective than the abortion pill, so why is the pro-choice lobby so sold on it? The bottom line may be—you guessed it—the bottom line. "Yes, it’s more profitable," said Diane Maracich, who manages the chemical abortion program for Long Beach-based Family Planning Associates.